from the #guinnessbookofhorribleworldrecords dept

India's somewhat schizophrenic relationship with privacy and freedom of speech has been discussed here before. The Indian government, on one hand, seems to want to do the right thing and safeguard its citizens from censorship and surveillance... but only up to a point. Once the going gets rough (i.e., outbreaks of violence, demonstrations), the government begins ramping up its surveillance and cracking down on free speakers.

On 20 October, he (Ravi Srinivasan) posted a tweet to his 16 followers saying that Karti Chidambaram, a politician belonging to India's ruling Congress party and son of Finance Minister P Chidambaram, had "amassed more wealth than Vadra".

This message ("got reports that karthick chidambaram has amassed more wealth than vadra") went out to all of 16 followers and somehow found its way to Karti himself, who responded like anyone else would when mildly insulted: by contacting law enforcement...

Karti Chidambaram (@KartiPC) did not take the tweet in good humour and filed a police complaint on 29 October.

… which immediately responded with the sort of speed reserved for appeasing angry politicians.

They arrested Mr Srinivasan early next morning, charged him under Section 66A of India's Information Technology [IT] Act, and demanded 15 days of police custody.

Srinivasan's single allegation could have been addressed through India's libel laws, but since that route takes time and money, the offended politician instead used the police department to take care of the "problem" by using the "sweeping power" of Section 66A of the IT Act of 2000.

[Section 66A] can send you to jail for three years for sending an email or other electronic message that "causes annoyance or inconvenience".

On the face of it, this protects citizens against online harassment.

In reality, the law is more often used by the state as a weapon against dissent. In each such case, police action has been swift and harsh.

In April, the West Bengal government led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee used Section 66A against a teacher who had emailed to friends a cartoon that was mildly critical of her.

Loosely worded laws, ostensibly designed to "protect" citizens, usually devolve into tools of censorship. For some strange reason, those with the most power are the ones who feel the most "threatened" by open criticism and dissent. It's little wonder that legislators are more than willing to push through open-ended "cyberlaws" that can be bent to fit any situation. The end result is this fact, which is perhaps least surprising of all:

And, interestingly, Section 66A has never been used against politicians.

To Srinivasan's credit, he refused to back down from his statement. In addition, his arrest and subsequent appearance on television led to him gaining another 2,300 followers, many of whom are wondering if his arrest was tied to his anti-corruption campaigning. Despite the public support of the arrested tweeter, the politician behind his arrest remains unrepentant, tweeting out this amazing statement in his own defense:

"Free speech is subject to reasonable restrictions. I have a right to seek constitutional/legal remedies over defamatory/scurrilous tweets."

There's nothing "reasonable" about arresting someone rather than following the "constitutional/legal remedies" set up by India's libel law. This is simple thug tactics being deployed by someone operating without fear of reprisal. Section 66A needs to be cleaned up if freedom of speech and privacy are going to be protected, rather than just paid lip service at convenient intervals.

seems like a clear case of 'if the hat fits, wear it' for Karti Chidambaram. dollar to a dime, what was said is close to the truth and we all know how politicians act when the (bad) truth about them comes out!!

Did I read that right?

Did he say "got reports that karthick chidambaram has amassed more wealth than vadra". So what he is saying is that karthick chidambaram has amassed more wealth than vadra. I wonder how karthick chidambaram has amassed more wealth than vadra?

The law according to Streisand

Once I heard someone say that politicians have the biggest appetite. Quite accurate, except for the fact that their appetite grows many times (in proportion to their current appetite) whenever they are successful in holding onto something "against the law".

But after sometime, when they had least expected, a hero/villain (depending on from whose perspective you are reading it - public/politician) arrives on the scene daring to interfere with their personal (read national) interests. In other words, threating to bind their appetite in a limit "defined by the law".

As a result, as has been mentioned in the Holy Book of the ignorant masses, called the "Constitution", that ultimate power rests in the hands of Politicians (read People), they use their power to suck the poison out of (reform) that "law" as it was unable to serve the personal (national) interests. They fulfill this Holy Ritual by converting that "law" into an open-ended one (just like their appetite), covering all the aspects of their lives (read society).

And in this way, they again become successful in keeping themselves away from the reach of that dreaded weapon that these occasional heroes/villains use, because that's the only "Legal" option they have got, and it is called "LAW"!!!
.
..
(...Wondering what the "Illegal" option is?)

Re: Did I read that right?

Indian IT Act Section 66A etc based arrests ongoing for some years...

India has been cracking down on not only on free speakers, but also whistleblowers and 'disgruntled employees' all on the back of Article 66A of the Indian IT Act. The arrests are often driven by powerful Indian politicians and increasingly by Indian and transnational corporations.

The internet content laws of Singapore/USA/UK vs. India could be substantially different, with India taking a more restrictive view criminializing online speech, a so-called "heavy touch" compared to say Singapore's "light touch". In fact the Indian IT Act may favor "forum shoppers" to rush there for online actions. The slow pace of India's judicial processing is not an issue to some, and is even a boon for for certain others who seek to keep free speech clamped down as long as contentious matters are "sub judice", that is, a very long time.

India =

India is a shithole. Full of corrupt politicians who think nothing of abusing their power. If you've been to India or live there, you know what I'm talking about. This is why Indians who move out of India never want to move back to India - it's a shithole.

Re: India =

undebated law... = harassment.

Section 66A of IT Act is being challenged in India Supreme Court by a 21 year old petitioner. Stay tuned. Kapil Sibal has issued some guidelines and it is found that Mr A Raja (jailed for corrupt 2G) was the lawmaker aggressive about section 66A. IT Act 2008 was among 8 laws passed in 15 minutes without debate! Terrible...